The 10th planet!
Pages
| Author | Topic: The 10th planet! |
|---|---|
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Sunday, July 31 2005 18:04
Profile
quote:Two parts quantum physics to one part gravity. Mix well, then add one whole egg (unbroken). Gently place it a gallon jug (plastic or glass only please) and you've done it. No need to cook it, it's ready to serve. *this message sponsored by the friendly gourmet* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 32
|
written Sunday, July 31 2005 18:20
Profile
quote:That all depends on where you're running. In a low pressure environment you could go almost as fast as you want due to the lack of friction... [ Sunday, July 31, 2005 18:20: Message edited by: Lt. Sullust ] -------------------- Lt. Sullust Cogito Ergo Sum Polaris Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5785
|
written Monday, August 1 2005 00:08
Profile
Untrue. There is always the pull of gravitation, and that pull would tear you appart. -------------------- "..The seventh wave of Thrall stumbled and climbed over the slippery, piled dead and Mazzarin saw The Watcher with them and at last knew the number of his days." Posts: 522 | Registered: Wednesday, May 4 2005 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 3870
|
written Monday, August 1 2005 00:18
Profile
Homepage
In a frictionless environment (which can be approximated, but not perfectly achieved), the only limit for velocity (up to the speed of light) should depend on the energy that is available for acceleration. Approaching the speed of light, the same amount of energy will yield ever smaller increases in velocity, until the speed of light is theoretically achieved by investing an infinite amount of energy (which is impossible). Or that is what I remember learning in physics, anyway. [ Monday, August 01, 2005 00:19: Message edited by: Albus Dumbledore ] -------------------- "Toleration is not the opposite of intoleration, but is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, and the other of granting it." ---Thomas Paine Posts: 156 | Registered: Thursday, January 8 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, August 1 2005 02:57
Profile
Homepage
quote:In order for you to be torn apart, different parts of you have to be moving at substantially different velocities; this is a fundamental requirement for tearing things apart, since as long as things are moving in step with each other, regardless of what speed they're going at, they're going to stay together. Moving extremely fast doesn't necessarily guarantee that different parts of you will move at different velocities, as long as you accelerate gently enough. (To put it another way, it's not the fall that kills you; it's the sudden stop.) -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Monday, August 1 2005 03:10
Profile
I'm very curious about what will happen to earth if they really manage to create a black hole. -------------------- Somebody PLEASE turn the heat on. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, August 1 2005 03:18
Profile
Homepage
I believe the consensus is that however hard it is to create a black hole, it's a few orders of magnitude harder to create a black hole that's large enough to eat anything. (Mind you, I'd still feel a little safer if any serious attempts at creating black holes were done in orbit somewhere.) -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, August 1 2005 04:12
Profile
quote:Remember to half-bake it. Contra, I'm afraid you're confused about how gravity works, if you think that moving fast through a gravitational field will pull you apart. But you are basically right that there is a great problem with friction in space travel near the speed of light. Even interstellar space is not quite empty; there is something like one hydrogen atom per cubic meter out there, and molecules or even bigger particles, up to dust grains, are scattered more thinly. Utterly negligble at low speeds, these tiny particles hit much harder if you're trying to plow through them near the speed of light. I don't have much feeling for how big a problem this really is, but I'm sure it'll be a significant factor in starship engineering. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Monday, August 1 2005 07:35
Profile
Homepage
quote:The microscopic black holes they hope to create will distenegrate in a fraction of a second. Black holes are always giving off energy, so they need to be big and continually sucking stuff in to maintain their size or grow. -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
|
written Monday, August 1 2005 08:07
Profile
Perhaps they should call 2003 UB 313 Viduus, or maybe Mantus… [ Monday, August 01, 2005 08:13: Message edited by: Revolting ] Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5785
|
written Monday, August 1 2005 13:04
Profile
quote:It is very possible that I am. I am no scentist afterall (I study Philosophy), and the point you brought up about the small particles in space was a very valid one. I was aware of them being there, I just forgot to think about them and their impact on high-velocity travel. But I KNOW for a fact that some guy posted a long theory on lightspeed and why matter can't enter it. I think Einstein spoke of it, once. Wish I could find out where I got that from. [ Monday, August 01, 2005 13:07: Message edited by: Contra ] -------------------- "..The seventh wave of Thrall stumbled and climbed over the slippery, piled dead and Mazzarin saw The Watcher with them and at last knew the number of his days." Posts: 522 | Registered: Wednesday, May 4 2005 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 878
|
written Monday, August 1 2005 13:18
Profile
A few things about lightspeed and faster travel: As it was said, as you approach the speed of light the same amount of additional energy will yield smaller increases in speed, but moving at a fast speed relative to something changes the rate of time flow for you relative to what isn't moving, so as someone said if you travel at close to the speed of light to another star and back at a fast enough speed you could experience only a few weeks or so of time but years would have passed, so that extra speed, while not significantly making you get back sooner will still have a big effect in how long you have to personally wait to get back. For something with mass to reach the speed of light though would take infinite energy (so that is why light moves at the speed of light- it has energy but no mass so its energy divided by its mass is infinite), and for you personally it would take no time at all for the trip. So before you could activate anything to slow down you would have traveled an infinite distance for an infinite amount of time leaving you in the empty remains of a universe where you could travel for an eternity in any direction before encountering a leftover particle from before your trip, but since you were traveling with infinite energy when you hit anything during the trip the infinite energy released from the impact would have destroyed the entire universe anyway. As for faster than light, the time effect of that would make you take a negative amount of personal time for the trip so you would seem to arrive before you left (but since you'd never reach a time after you left you couldn't possibly slow down, so you would arrive at a time infinitely far back in your past, and since this speed would somehow require more than infinite energy (which doesn't make any sense, but then again faster than light travel doesn't make any sense anyway due to these things), you would not only destroy the entire universe now, but destroy it for all history from before it even began.) That is why any science fiction involving faster than light travel needs to explain it with wormholes or some fictional principles (thus the many stories that invoke something called "hyperspace" or "warp drive"). -------------------- Warning: Posts may contain misspellinks and typo.s Posts: 409 | Registered: Sunday, March 31 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5785
|
written Monday, August 1 2005 23:49
Profile
That's intresting. Who have spoken these theories, or are they generally accepted as true? -------------------- "..The seventh wave of Thrall stumbled and climbed over the slippery, piled dead and Mazzarin saw The Watcher with them and at last knew the number of his days." Posts: 522 | Registered: Wednesday, May 4 2005 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
|
written Tuesday, August 2 2005 00:28
Profile
quote:Actually, if you would surpass the speed of light, time would return to the moment before you reached the speed of light. This way, you would remain a speed of 300.000 kilometres per second. [ Tuesday, August 02, 2005 00:33: Message edited by: Monstrous ] Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 2940
|
written Tuesday, August 2 2005 02:33
Profile
Homepage
Unfortunately, worm holes are more science fiction than they are science fact. A wormhole is a theoretical opening in space-time that one could use to travel to far away places very quickly. The wormhole itself is two copies of the black hole geometry connected by a throat - the throat, or passageway, is called an Einstein-Rosen bridge. It has never been proved that worm holes exist and there is no experimental evidence for them, but it is fun to think about the possibilities their existence might create. We would not need faster than light travel, Assume that the wormhole connects two remote locations. While traveling through a wormhole subluminal (slower-than-light) speeds can be used. The time in which the distance was traveled would appear faster than it would take light to make the journey through normal space. A wormhole could potentially allow time travel. But is is all theoretical fun. There is no experimental evidence for them. Stephen Hawking conjectured that while wormholes might be created, they cannot be used for time travel; even with exotic matter stabilizing the wormhole against its own instabilities, he argued, inserting a particle into it will destabilize it quickly enough to prevent its use. On another note, is "2003-UB313" the real name? Or is it just temporary. -------------------- "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying." Posts: 469 | Registered: Thursday, May 1 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
|
written Tuesday, August 2 2005 02:49
Profile
quote:It's temporary, I hope. Even fairly small asteroids have "decent" names. [ Tuesday, August 02, 2005 03:52: Message edited by: Monstrous ] Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Tuesday, August 2 2005 03:19
Profile
Homepage
Don't. Only the ones that are fairly well-known get names, and all objects (nowadays) are named by a code number when they are first discovered. 2003 stands for the year of discovery, the rest I'm not sure about. Distant stars (that aren't visible with the naked eye) sometimes have names like this as well. While we're talking about planets, did you hear that rather than 10, it's looking like we'll soon have just 8? ;) -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, August 2 2005 03:59
Profile
quote:Ah, so this is where people get the idea that wormholes and black holes are related. I should have realized. It's a red herring. The Schwarzschild metric is the unique asymptotically flat, spherically symmetric vaccuum solution to Einstein's equations. What this means is that the gravitational field far away from anything round looks like a 'black hole geometry'. The gravitational field of the sun, through which the Earth moves, is in this sense a 'black hole geometry'. But the sun is not a black hole, because the 'black hole geometry' only applies outside the solar interior. Inside, the presence of the sun's matter changes the equations, and the result is perfectly ordinary gravitational fields inside the sun, nothing Newton couldn't handle, instead of the event horizon that would form if the sun's mass were all concentrated within a two mile radius. And no event horizon means no black hole, even though the distant gravitational field of the sun is exactly the same as the distant gravitational field of a black hole of the same mass. In the same way, for a wormhole, the 'throat' replaces the regions that would contain the event horizons. And it is really an event horizon that constitutes a black hole. Thus, while Nazgul's expression is accurate, or at least defensible, it is potentially misleading to lay people, because it is not at all true that wormholes involve black holes. Generally everything Nazgul has said is true, except that it is worth pointing out that the concept of a wormhole is a very general one -- it's a topology, not a geometry -- and many types of wormhole have been suggested in the literature of theoretical physics. Some would allow time travel, others wouldn't. Some would be traversable, others not. Some exist in three dimensions, others in four. (These latter would look to us like a small part of the universe suddenly pinching off and disappearing, then re-joining it at any place and time. A bold theory to explain missing socks.) The biggest hurdle for the three-dimensional ones that one would like to use for travelling is that general relativity says their throats would have to be filled with matter having negative energy density, and we don't know how that can exist. So the prospects for wormholes actually existing are a bit worse than just 'no evidence for'; currently, they look pretty doubtful. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 2940
|
written Tuesday, August 2 2005 04:49
Profile
Homepage
quote:Aha! I knew there was an explanation for those missing socks. Pinching to a parallel universe, I should have guessed. :D -------------------- "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying." Posts: 469 | Registered: Thursday, May 1 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5785
|
written Tuesday, August 2 2005 06:50
Profile
E=mc2 is all we need to say on this topic, I guess. -------------------- "..The seventh wave of Thrall stumbled and climbed over the slippery, piled dead and Mazzarin saw The Watcher with them and at last knew the number of his days." Posts: 522 | Registered: Wednesday, May 4 2005 07:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Tuesday, August 2 2005 07:07
Profile
Homepage
quote:Actually, there's thousands of names for asteroids. More than you might think. But many do just go with their code name, as it's very impractical to name all of the about 100,000 that have been found so far. I'm sure this particular one will get a name, though. -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, August 2 2005 20:22
Profile
Homepage
quote:The "speed of light" business is basic Einsteinian special relativity. The wormhole/black hole stuff involves Einsteinian general relativity and, from what little I understand, some stuff that has been developed since then (i.e. in the sixties and later). -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, August 3 2005 06:48
Profile
The wormhole stuff is basically all still general relativity. General relativity was in one sense single-handedly finished by Einstein in 1916, in the sense that he wrote down the equations then and they haven't been changed since. But it has taken decades to appreciate all that they imply, and we're not done yet. Poor Einstein died before some aspects of his own greatest theory, which are now considered fundamental to it, were understood by anyone. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 2940
|
written Wednesday, August 3 2005 06:58
Profile
Homepage
Got an update on the tenth planet, 2003-UB313's actual alias or name is "Xena". That's more like it, isn't it. Also, the Intarnational Astronomy Union decided to clarify the definition of "planet". If it is changed Xena would not count as a planet, but neither will Pluto!. On the other hand, if it remains the same, our solar sistem could have another dozen planets! -------------------- "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying." Posts: 469 | Registered: Thursday, May 1 2003 07:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Wednesday, August 3 2005 11:56
Profile
Homepage
Now we need to make a poll. Are Xena and Pluto planets? I'm going to say no. -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |